From: Red Rackham on 18 Apr 2010 07:41 "Graf Finklestein" <udo_binsack(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8f5d3e66-2d3c-41ad-8c6e-2de848a7b988(a)j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... On 18 Apr, 12:12, "Red Rackham" <ONei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Udo Binsack" <udo_bins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:86d79498-5ae0-497b-bf29-e0156b9f4f8c(a)u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On 18 Apr, 11:18, "Steev" <st...(a)shirleyroad.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > > "Google Beta User" <wanyik...(a)gmail.com> wrote > > > >I have a hunch since about 2007, coinciding with your current run of > > >three straight titles, you've been bigger spenders than them. I > > >haven't run the figures, but you've had some pretty big purchases. > > > Your hunch would be wrong. > > Since 2007 Chelsea have spent 94.2m and Man U 49.75m..(figures courtesy > > of > > soccerbase.com) > > > Steve > > Soccerbase is notoriously inaccurate. > > Yeah naff, you're far more reliable. More so than you, it seems. Notice you've chosen not to back up your "Chelsea have spent �2bn" lie. Any reason? > GBU's hunch is absolutely spot > on - Utd have spent far more than Chelsea. > > Source for United and Chelsea's spending since 2007? Just look it up. I'm asking for 'your' source. > Since 2007, Chelsea have spent �94m, Utd have spent over �105m just on > the likes of Berbatov, Nani, Hargreaves, Anderson, the Silva brothers, > Valencia and Obertan. That isn't taking into account how much they > spent on Manucho, Kuszczak (sp?), Samlling, Diouf, Tosic, Ljajic, etc. > > So far I've only found figures for the entire premiership era: > > http://transferleague.co.uk/ Feel free to post anything you feel disproves the above. Right. So you just want to take a period where Chelsea have already spent well over half a billion quid and pat yourself on the back because they haven't spent any more. Well done. PMSL Feel free to post any figures that show Chelsea aren't 'by far' the highest spenders in the Premiership era and only have one more title than Blackburn.
From: Google Beta User on 18 Apr 2010 08:47 On Apr 18, 6:17 am, "Red Rackham" <ONei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Didn't you simply match/pass their spending though once >Abramovich came > > into the picture? Could be wrong though, haven't >checked the exact > > figures. > > > >Then I'd suggest checking them first before making such an >erroneous > > >post. We haven't spent anything near Chelsea's amount. >Not even half. > > >Let me rephrase, Chelsea passed you, then you stepped up a gear and > >matched/passed *their* spending? > > Absolutely not. Le Dieu, your replys are always mixed in to the original posts with no markings. Anyway, as the link was posted, I was able to test out my hunch. Let's see the figures since 2007 season: Carrick 18.6 M pounds Tevez 10M Nani 13.5M Anderson 15M Hargreaves 17M Berbatov 30M Valencia 16M Silva Twins 5M Tosic 5M Cole 5M Boulahrouz 7M Malouda 13.5M Anelka 15M Ivanovic 9M Bosingwa 16.2M Deco 8M Chelsea have spent about 75 million pounds over your most recent championship streak. United have spent roughly 120 million pounds over the same period. So I wouldn't exactly say United have an unfair disadvantage, or that they didnt' spend either. But again, there's nothing "wrong" with spending....and City and Chelsea have a right to spend to, there's no divine right for ONLY the Mancs to spend money. ..
From: Google Beta User on 18 Apr 2010 12:32 On Apr 18, 7:41 am, "Red Rackham" <ONei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Right. So you just want to take a period where Chelsea have already spent > well over half a billion quid and pat yourself on the back because they > haven't spent any more. > > Well done. No. What I'm saying is they came in and spent. Got a good manager. And then they passed you, Mourinho stormed the league, and set a new standard. It could've fallen apart but it didn't. In response you lot stepped it up a notch, nad matched them. Part of that was in turn spending even *more* than Chelsea themselves. Over your current run, you'v spent more than them. However, the fact that you spent money doesn't make you illegitimate.
From: JAB on 18 Apr 2010 12:36 On 18/04/2010 5:32 PM, Google Beta User wrote: > On Apr 18, 7:41 am, "Red Rackham"<ONei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Right. So you just want to take a period where Chelsea have already spent >> well over half a billion quid and pat yourself on the back because they >> haven't spent any more. >> >> Well done. > > No. What I'm saying is they came in and spent. Got a good manager. > And then they passed you, Mourinho stormed the league, and set a new > standard. It could've fallen apart but it didn't. > > In response you lot stepped it up a notch, nad matched them. Part of > that was in turn spending even *more* than Chelsea themselves. Over > your current run, you'v spent more than them. > > However, the fact that you spent money doesn't make you illegitimate. Stop confusing Le Dieu with facts ... it's not his strong point.
From: Graf Finklestein on 18 Apr 2010 13:49
On 18 Apr, 12:41, "Red Rackham" <ONei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Graf Finklestein" <udo_bins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > Feel free to post anything you feel disproves the above. > > Right. So you just want to take a period where Chelsea have already spent > well over half a billion quid and pat yourself on the back because they > haven't spent any more. > > Well done. > > PMSL GBU: "I have a hunch since about 2007, coinciding with your current run of three straight titles, you've been bigger spenders than them." Timmy : "These things are best not done on 'hunches'. Hard facts are necessary. They will tell you that Chelsea have *far* outspent United." Then I come along and prove you to be lying again, and lo and behold, you start jabbering about something completely different. Still too easy, Timmy - still far too easy. |